crowTrobot
-
Content Count
4,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by crowTrobot
-
-
no, not semantics. your original statement implied a double standard for whoever you were referring to - someone who claims to know no god exists without being able to even fully understand evolution. in that context "know god doesn't exist" can only mean "be certain no god exists", not "lack belief a god exists". you even emphasized the word know lol.stop the dishonesty.And now the semantics game...designed to allow you to get away from ever admitting responsibility.All in the same thread where you pretended that semantics dodge was always brought up by me. -
me or anyone else. it's obvious what people here think of your tactics.So this allows you to speak for them? -
changed your statement. let the dishonesty and manipulation start.not believing in something is not the same as claiming to know it doesn't exist.I will grant you one early Christmas gift and not search through the last week's posts to find the number of posts where people have said they do not believe that God exists. -
you misprepresented that i claim to speak for most christians. it's not hard to speak for the atheists on this board. they've all posted their opinions of your intellectual honesty - several of them in this thread.LOL, this is your response to defend your position that I misrepresent you when I say you try to speak for entire groups of people? -
i'm not wrong. nobody currently or recently posting here has ever said they know no god exists in any kind of generic context that would be relevant to your statement. but feel free to waste your time digging through posts if you really want to.fyp -
everyone arguing against you here will agree that you are intellectually dishonest and manipulative in your approach to debate, including in your characterization of your opponents positions and statements. if you doubt that feel free to ask. the only mystery is how much of your BS is intentional deceit and how much you have deluded yourself into actually believing.Obviously so to the rest of the world -
no thanks. not interested in more of you trying to equivocate statements about traditional human gods into generic certainty of no god. you do that enough on your own.So all I need to do is find ONE person who wrote that they know there is no God and you would admit that you are wrong here?
obviously not.Backtracking already? -
it obviously WAS the same thing. nobody here has said they "know" there is no god. straw man.Claiming that a post I made to a different poster than you is the same thing as posting it about you is lol
yawn.The only time? really?you want to stick with that or would you like to tap dance out of this position now?
i don't know about the better than you part. everyone here is aware when you're making intellectually dishonest statements, but i'm not certain how much or on what level you yourself are consciously aware of it. as speed noted you've been doing it so long it might just be an automated response when you don't have an honest counter.Oh..so it's not a big deal that you claim to know what I think better than myself, because everyone knows what I think better than me? -
not semantics. it's an important difference that could potentially solve any qualms scientists have with mutation rate.Semantics...
i'll be hiding behind john conner.I bet you'll try that on Judgment Day too, it also won't work there. -
You claim I use straw man arguments, then use one to prove it.
denying doing something you just did 4 posts ago is lol.we have you telling us that you know there is no God, without the simple knowledge of the planet you live on, let alone of the existence of all life forms in the universe.
good luck with that one. the only time the subject of semantics even comes up is when you insist on sticking to irrelevant definitions to support straw men.You pretend that semantics isn't relevant to what people believe, while being the most anal person with regards to semantics on the board.
you're confused. i didn't bother to respond to the allegation of claiming to know what you think because what/how you think is obvious to everyone.And you claim to know what I think in the same thread where you call me a liar for claiming that you claim to know what I think. -
quite the comedian.I actually have a pretty decent understanding of evolution, just because I challenge it doesn't mean I don't know what you think.How hard is it to understand evolution? It was invented by a couple guys who thought that the cell was the smallest building block of all life, that washing your hands wouldn't stop the spread of disease, and that the processes of inner species changes could be applied to cross species change.At one time something happened ( what we do not know ) and whammy tons of stuff like energy etc floating around the vastness of space.Then one day after the energy cooled whammy, gas clouds collapsed and became planets that luckily found orbits around stars.Then on one planet, vast amounts of the 44 thingies needed for life to begin were mixed together and whammy, they made life out of non-life.Then this life changed, ( we are not sure how ) slowly, ( and luckily in step with it's food sources ) and the changes that were beneficial were 'allowed' to continue by a hostile environment.Luckily some of these changes in life forms coincided with the need for multiple parasitic reliance on other life forms, all while being grown inside life forms that had complex systems of lungs hearts and livers that also are unable alone to survive.Then after observing 1/1,0000,000000,0000000,00000th of this action, we decided that we understood it and could finally throw off the shackles of religion teaching us to love one another.Nazis, Eugenics, Communism and Jerry Springer later...we have you telling us that you know there is no God, without the simple knowledge of the planet you live on, let alone of the existence of all life forms in the universe. -
i didn't say that. i said what is expressed in the phenotype is partially the result of interaction between multiple genes rather than expression of individual genes, and changes in those interactions not necessarily resulting from mutations may be partial responsible for selection. epigenetics.So you were misleading me when you said they are not sure if mutations are the only way changes are introduced into cells and DNA?
us guys don't claim to be certain evolution isn't designed, so no it wouldn't.Yea, but it would make you guys wrong, big time. -
your "point" was that i consistently make broad claims to know what most christians think. why would it?i happen to know the way YOU think from reading your posts for 4 years, and from being the subject of near-continuous unprovoked manipulative attacks for months. insisting you were referencing something broader in this thread when it wasn't even relevant was just another manipulative attempt to misdirect from the real issue - which was your bogus implication that the evolutionists here dismiss your questions/challenges outright by appealing to authority.So when you told me my post in the "changes to the Bible" thread was in reference to the posts I made in the 'evolution simulation' thread, when it wasn't...and then you told me I was lying about that too, wouldn't that make this point clear enough for even you to follow?
irrelevant. people don't base what they think on semantics.We haven't even decided which definition of atheist we are ever going to use
your primary recurring straw man is the boring old "atheists claim to be certain no god of any kind exists, so atheism is a religion, atheists share the burden of proof etc"it doesn't take much research to determine that the vast majority of people who consider themselves atheists don't claim that.Besides, most atheist would disagree with you -
we agree that you think that. you should try giving me credit for one. even if it's a poor one.On that we can agree -
only when referring to polls. otherwise that's a lie.crow Has consistently made broad quotes where he tells me about what most Christians think
you mean you like to mischaracterize what most atheists think to create straw men and i won't let you get away with it.what most atheist think -
possibly incomplete, not largely unknown.so you admit that your understanding of the mechanisms of evolution are largely unknown
even if an intelligence is found underlying evolution it would not in any way be evidence that the bible is historical, or that christianity is true. unrelated subjects.but since you know evolution is true, you can infer that one day you will know these mechanisms, and it will support your current beliefs? -
i know you apparently don't think i have a sense of humor.Once again..crow not only knows everything, he even knows what I think/feel/know better than me. -
your continual use of the word accident demonstrates by itself that you lack understanding.Because of your stubborn inability to understand anything but what you 'know' you assume I am completely lacking in an understanding of evolution. I don't believe in evolution, for many reasons, not the least of which is the complexity of life being too complex to have happened by accident. as such I try to draw you guys into seeing the difficulty I see.
actually some scientists agree that what you are referring to (mutation rates/time available vs. complexity) is a potential problem. but you aren't graspingthat the problem (if it really is one) would only be with conventional natural selection as a complete explanation for evolution, not with evolution itself.again, in this thread you are not really even challenging evolution - only our understanding of the mechanism that drives it.What's funny is that the very logic you think supports you actually causes you the problems I am pointing out. -
radiocarbon dating uses C-14, not C-12So I was reading something ( Gasp! I know) about carbon dating and I have some questions for you evolutionists.I've always known that carbon dating was limited to about 25,000 years max because it gets to be too small to accurately measure, with it's half life of a little over 5,000 years, and after 100,000 years it is basically gone.And I know there have been a few times that the dating method resulted in really bad dates, living trees being over 1,000 years old etc.But I was reading about how C-12 is sometimes found in diamonds and things well over a million years old, and I wonder why this doesn't make the carbon dating method too problematic to be a seriously considered dating method?Is it because it 'seems to be right' most of the time? -
neither can hei'll admit, at this point I can't tell what's sarcastic and what isn't... -
i'm sure you can get assistance with that if you want to convertprolly cause I dont have access to explosives.
-
everywhere is the center of it all.Pretty cool to think that we are the center of it all -
if you mean "why is there something instead of nothing" i'd even challenge that statement. it may be that due to our limited perspective we will never be able to answer that in a sensible way, but at this point i think it's presumptuous to say we never will, and it's still an empirical question - firmly on scientific ground.if you mean "what should our values be" or something similarly subjective, that's getting away from science and more towards philosophy. sounds like you're asking more about origins, though.And yes you are correct about the other thing you said which I didn't quote, but I was more aiming for the point that no scientific knowledge will ever answer the question of why existence...exists. -
islam values and rewards faith. why aren't you a muslim?NO it cant, which brings us back to my original point. Faith is what matters, if Jesus did an oprah style show every week, than faith wouldnt be an issue. For some reason which I cant explain faith seems to be the big issue with God.The story of doubting thomas is about faith, as is the centurions servant, and the thief on the cross. As I said before, the thief was the only one who was promised paradise by Jesus,he made no such promise to anyone else.
The Evolution Computer Simulator
in Religion
Posted